United States anti-abortion movement

The United States anti-abortion movement (or the pro-life movement or right-to-life movement) contains elements opposing elective or therapeutic abortion on both moral and sectarian grounds and supports its legal prohibition or restriction. Advocates generally argue that human life begins at conception and that the human zygote (or embryo or fetus) is a person and therefore has a right to life. The anti-abortion movement includes a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body.[1] There are diverse arguments and rationales for the anti-abortion stance. Some anti-abortion activists concede arguments for permissible abortions, including therapeutic abortions, in exceptional circumstances such as incest, rape, severe fetal defects or when the woman's health is at risk.

Before the Supreme Court 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, anti-abortion views predominated and found expression in state laws which prohibited or restricted abortions in a variety of ways. (See Abortion in the United States.) The anti-abortion movement became politically active and dedicated to the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down most state laws restricting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.[2][3]
In the United States, the movement is associated with several Christian religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, and is frequently, but not exclusively, allied with the Republican Party.[4][5] The movement is also supported by secular organizations (such as Secular Pro-Life) and non-mainstream anti-abortion feminists.[6] The movement seeks to reverse Roe v. Wade and to promote legislative changes or constitutional amendments, such as the Human Life Amendment, that prohibit or at least broadly restrict abortion.[1]

The description "pro-life" was adopted by the right-to-life (anti-abortion) movement in the United States following the Supreme Court 1973 decision Roe v. Wade,[1] which held that a woman may terminate her pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus outside of the womb and may also terminate her pregnancy "subsequent to viability ... for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."[8] The term "pro-life" was adopted instead of "anti-abortion" to highlight their proponents' belief that abortion is the taking of a human life, rather than an issue concerning the restriction of women's reproductive rights.[1] The first organized action was initiated by U.S. Catholic bishops who recommended in 1973 that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to ban abortion.[1]

Roe v. Wade was considered a major setback by anti-abortion campaigners. The case and the overturning of most anti-abortion laws spurred the growth of a largely religious-based anti-abortion political and social movement, even as Americans were becoming, in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly pro-choice. The first major anti-abortion success since Roe's case came in 1976 with the passing of the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of certain federal funds for abortions. In Harris v. McRae, anti-abortion advocates won a 1980 challenge to the Hyde Amendment. That same year, the anti-abortion movement gained control of the Republican Party's platform committee, adding anti-abortion planks to the Republican position, and calling for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning abortion.[1] Four anti-abortion U.S. Presidents – Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump – were elected.

That the pro-life movement is bigger is a given. It's also younger, increasingly entrepreneurial, more strategic in its thinking, better organized, tougher in dealing with allies and enemies alike, almost wildly ambitious, and more relentless than ever. Pro-lifers have captured the high moral ground, chiefly thanks to advances in the quality of sonograms. Once fuzzy, sonograms now provide a high-resolution picture of the unborn child in the womb. Fetuses have become babies.[9]

The anti-abortion movement has been successful in recent years in promoting new laws against abortion within the states. The Guttmacher Institute said eighty laws restricting abortion were passed in the first six months of 2011, "more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005—and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010".[11]

Abortion opponents generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary anti-abortion movement is typically, but not exclusively, influenced by conservative Christian beliefs, especially in the United States, and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.[12][vague] From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others, as such benefits are coming at the expense of the life of what they believe to be a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth, such as anencephalic fetuses.

Some abortion opponents also oppose certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as emergency contraception (ECPs), and copper IUDs which prevent the implantation of an embryo. Because they believe that the term "pregnancy" should be defined so as to begin at fertilization, they refer to these contraceptives as abortifacients[13] because they cause the embryo to starve. An embryo gets its nourishment off the uterine wall and dies if not attached. The Catholic Church endorses this view,[14] but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is disputed within the scientific community, including some anti-abortion physicians.[15]
Attachment to an anti-abortion position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also culture of life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint[citation needed] among anti-abortion advocates; these groups say that their position is based on human rights and biology, rather than religion.[16][17][18] Some holding the anti-abortion position also hold a complementarian view of gender roles, though there is also a self-described feminist element inside the movement.[19]

The variety in opinion on the issue of abortion is reflected in the diverse views of religious groups. For example, the Catholic Church considers all procured abortions morally evil,[20] while traditional Jewish teaching sanctions abortion if necessary to safeguard the life and well-being of the pregnant woman.[21]

Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention officially advocated for loosening of abortion restrictions.[23] During the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon "to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."[23] W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court abortion decision."[23] By 1980, conservative Protestant leaders became vocal in their opposition to legalized abortion,[24] and by the early 1990s Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition of America became a significant anti-abortion organization.[25] In 2005, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said that making abortion illegal is more important than any other issue.[26]

Among Mainline Protestant denominations, the Episcopal Church recognizes a right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy, but opposes "abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience."[31] The United Church of Christ supports abortion rights, viewing it as a matter of reproductive health and justice.[31] The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) adopts the view that abortion is a personal choice, but acknowledges "diverse conclusions and actions" within the church on the issue.[31] The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's position is that abortion prior to the point of viability "should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding" but that "abortion after the point of fetal viability should be prohibited except when the life of a mother is threatened or when fetal abnormalities pose a fatal threat to a newborn."[31]

Supporters of the consistent life ethic also oppose abortions as one of the acts that end human life. In 1979, Juli Loesch linked anti-abortion and anti-nuclear weapons arguments to form the group Pro Lifers for Survival. In 1987 this group defined an ethic of the sanctity of all life, and formed the group Seamless Garment Network. This group was against abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, militarism, poverty and racism.[34] Beginning in 1983, American Catholic CardinalJoseph Bernardin argued that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all related, and all wrong. He said that "to be truly 'pro-life,' you have to take all of those issues into account."[35] Paul M. Perl studied 1996 voter statistics and found that the consistent life ethic is difficult for religious leaders to promote because it combines the generally conservative anti-abortion stance with a liberal social attitude.[36]

The New York Times reported in 2011 that the anti-abortion movement in the United States has been undergoing a disagreement over tactics. Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the movement has usually focused on chipping away at Roe through incremental restrictions such as laws requiring parental consent or women to see sonograms, restricting late-term abortions, etc., with the goal of limiting abortions and changing "hearts and minds" until there is a majority on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. However, some activists are calling for "an all-out legal assault on Roe. v. Wade", seeking the enactment of laws defining legal personhood as beginning at fertilization or prohibiting abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable at six to eight weeks in the hope that court challenges to such laws would lead the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. They believe that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who nearly decided to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is open to rethinking Roe. Others fear that the Court would not only strike down the laws in question but other state laws as well, and take the opportunity to solidify the ruling in Roe. Evangelical Christian groups tend to be in the former camp and Catholic groups in the latter.[46]

Studies indicate that activists within the American anti-abortion movement are predominantly white and educated, with a majority of anti-abortion activism constituted by women. Scholars continue to dispute the primary factors that cause individuals to become anti-abortion activists. While some have suggested that a particular moral stance or worldview leads to activism, others have suggested that activism leads individuals to develop particular moral positions and worldviews.

A 1981 survey of dues paying members of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) by sociologist Donald O. Granberg found that survey respondents held conservative views on sex, sex education, and contraception. Additionally, Granberg's survey provided basic demographic characteristics of his sample: 98% of survey respondents were white, 63% were female, 58% had a college degree, and 70% were Catholic. Granberg concluded that conservative personal morality was the primary mechanism for explaining an individual's involvement in the anti-abortion movement.[47]

A 2002 study by Carol J.C. Maxwell drawing on decades of survey and interview data of direct-action activists within the anti-abortion movement found that 99% of the sample was white, 60% was female, 51% had a college degree, and 29% were Catholic. Like Granberg's 1981 study, Maxwell concluded that anti-abortion and pro-choice activists held two different worldviews which in turn are formed by two different moral centers.[48]

More recently, sociologist Ziad Munson studied the characteristics of both activists and non-activists who considered themselves anti-abortion. The anti-abortion activists of Munson's sample were 93% white, 57% female, 66% Catholic, and 71% had a college degree. Of non-activists who considered themselves anti-abortion, Munson found that 83% were white, 52% were female, 45% were Catholic, and 76% had a college degree. In Munson's analysis personal moralities and worldviews are formed as a consequence of participation in anti-abortion activism. Munson's analysis differs from previous scholarly work in its assertion that beliefs result from activism rather than causing activism. For Munson, life course factors make an individual more or less likely to become an activist.[49]

According to a 2013 Gallup poll, fifteen percent of Americans with no religious identity are anti-abortion and slight majorities of Catholics, Protestants, Southerners, seniors and nonwhites reported as anti-abortion.[50]

Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. "Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life".[55] Some right-to-lifers use the term "pro-abort" to refer to pro-choice organizations and individuals.[56]

The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".[57] In a 2009 Gallup Poll, a majority of U.S. adults (51%) called themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion—for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1995—while 42% identified themselves as "pro-choice",[58] although pro-choice groups noted that acceptance of the "pro-life" label did not in all cases indicate opposition to legalized abortion, and that another recent poll had indicated that an equal number were pro-choice.[59] A March 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll concluded that Americans are "closely divided between those who call themselves pro-life" and those who consider themselves as "pro-choice".[60] In a February 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll of "Likely U.S. Voters", fifty percent view themselves as
"pro-choice" and forty percent "say they are pro-life".[61] In a July 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll of "Likely U.S. Voters", 46 percent view themselves as "pro-choice" and 43 percent "say they are pro-life".[62]

Mass demonstrations: every year, American anti-abortion advocates hold a March for Life in Washington, D.C., on 22 January, the anniversary date of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States. The event typically draws tens of thousands of attendees[63][64] and, since 2003, frequently features notable politicians as speakers. Similar events take place on a smaller scale in other U.S. cities, such as the Walk for Life in San Francisco, California.

The life chain: The "Life Chain" is a public demonstration technique that involves standing in a row on sidewalks holding signs bearing anti-abortion messages. Messages include "Abortion Kills Children", "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "Abortion Hurts Women". Participants, as an official policy, do not yell or chant slogans and do not block pedestrians or roadways. Many Right to Life chapters hold Life Chain events yearly[65] and the annual worldwide 40 Days for Life campaigns also use this technique.

The rescue: A "rescue operation" involves anti-abortion activists blocking the entrances to an abortion clinic in order to prevent anyone from entering. The stated goal of this practice is to force the clinic to shut down for the day. Often, the protesters are removed by law enforcement. Some clinics were protested so heavily in this fashion that they closed down permanently. "The rescue" was first attempted by Operation Rescue. Ever since President Bill Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act into law, the rescue has become prohibitively expensive, and has rarely been attempted.

The truth display: Involves publicly displaying large pictures of aborted fetuses. Some anti-abortion groups believe that showing the graphic results of abortion is an effective way to dissuade and prevent others from choosing abortion. The Pro-life Action League has used this form of activism in its Face the Truth displays. Members of one group, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, are known for setting up truth displays on university campuses. This group has faced legal battles over the use of such graphic imagery, and they have generated debate regarding the protection of such displays, by freedom of speech. "Truth displays" are controversial, even within the anti-abortion movement.[66]

Picketing: The majority of the facilities that perform abortions in the United States experience some form of protest from anti-abortion demonstrators every year, of which the most common form is picketing. In 2007, 11,113 instances of picketing were either reported to, or obtained by, the National Abortion Federation.[67]

The "Chicago Method" is an approach to sidewalk counseling that involves giving those about to enter an abortion facility copies of lawsuits filed against the facility or its physicians. The name comes from the fact that it was first used by Pro-life Action League in Chicago.[69] The intent of the Chicago Method is to turn the woman away from a facility that the protesters deem "unsafe", thus giving her time to reconsider her choice to abort.[70][non-primary source needed]

Crisis pregnancy centers: "Crisis pregnancy centers" are non-profit organizations, mainly in the United States, established to counsel pregnant women against having an abortion.[71][72] These centers are typically run by anti-abortion Christians according to a conservative Christian philosophy,[73] and often disseminate false medical information, usually but not exclusively about the supposed health risks and mental health risks of abortion.[74] The centers usually provide peer counseling against abortion, and sometimes also offer adoption referrals or baby supplies.[75] Most are not licensed and do not provide medical services,[76] though some offer sonograms, claiming that women who see such sonograms decide not to have an abortion.[72] Legal and legislative action regarding CPCs has generally attempted to curb false or deceptive advertising undertaken in pursuit of the anti-abortion cause.[77] Several thousand CPCs exist in the United States,[73] often operating in affiliation with one of three umbrella organizations (Care Net, Heartbeat International, and Birthright International), with hundreds in other countries. By 2006, U.S. CPCs had received more than $60 million of federal funding, including some funding earmarked for abstinence-only programs,[78] as well as state funding from many states.[72]

In the United States, some states issue specialty license plates that have an anti-abortion theme. Choose Life, an advocacy group founded in 1997, was successful in securing an anti-abortion automobile tag in Florida. Subsequently, the organization has been actively helping groups in other states pursue "Choose Life" license plates.[79][80]

Some right-to-life advocacy groups allege a link between abortion and subsequent mental-health problems.[93] Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not supported by the bulk of the scientific literature,[93][94][95][96][97] and are contradicted by mainstream organizations of mental-health professionals such as the American Psychological Association.[98][99][100]

As of 1995, nearly all anti-abortion leaders said that they condemned the use of violence in the movement, describing it as an aberration and saying that no one in their organizations was associated with acts of violence.[103][104] There is, however, a small extremist fringe element of the right-to-life movement in the USA, which supports, raises money for, and attempts to justify anti-abortion violence, including murders of abortion workers, which the fringe element calls "justifiable homicides".[105][106][107]

^Catechism of the Catholic Church para.2271, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: 'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish'". Vatican website. Accessed 2011-02-05.

^"Americans Think New State Laws Will Reduce Number of Abortions". Rasmussen Reports, LLC. March 10, 2011. Retrieved 2011-03-15. While the country remains closely divided between those who call themselves pro-life and those who view themselves as pro-choice, the majority of Likely U.S. Voters think abortion is morally wrong in most cases.

^Pavone, Frank A."Should We Use Graphic Images?"Priests for Life Retrieved September 7, 2007. Quote: "Even among those who oppose abortion, answers to this question [Should we use graphic images?] vary".

^ abStotland NL (2003). "Abortion and psychiatric practice". J Psychiatr Pract. 9 (2): 139–49. doi:10.1097/00131746-200303000-00005. PMID15985924."Currently, there are active attempts to convince the public and women considering abortion that abortion frequently has negative psychiatric consequences. This assertion is not borne out by the literature: the vast majority of women tolerate abortion without psychiatric sequelae."

^Lazzarini Z (November 2008). "South Dakota's Abortion Script – Threatening the Physician-Patient Relationship". N. Engl. J. Med. 359 (21): 2189–2191. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0806742. PMID19020321. The purported increased risks of psychological distress, depression, and suicide that physicians are required to warn women about are not supported by the bulk of the scientific literature. By requiring physicians to deliver such misinformation and discouraging them from providing alternative accurate information, the statute forces physicians to violate their obligation to solicit truly informed consent.